McNeil v. Acura of Valley Stream

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNeil v. Acura of Valley Stream

201 A.D.2d 629, 609 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1465

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 629 (McNeil v. Acura of Valley Stream) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McNeil v. Acura of Valley Stream, 201 A.D.2d 629, 609 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to rescind an automobile leasing agreement and to recover damages for fraud and misrepresentation, the defendant Barco Auto Leasing Corp., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated September 11, 1991, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs was sufficient to warrant denial of the appellant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f). We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to rescind an automobile leasing agreement and to recover damages for fraud and misrepresentation, the defendant Barco Auto Leasing Corp., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated September 11, 1991, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs was sufficient to warrant denial of the appellant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f). We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 629, 609 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneil-v-acura-of-valley-stream-nyappdiv-1994.